A rabbit hole to innovation land: An empirical examination of the Alice decision

IF 3.3 3区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Hyejin Lee , Young Soo Park , Jaeseog Na , Sung-Pil Park
{"title":"A rabbit hole to innovation land: An empirical examination of the Alice decision","authors":"Hyejin Lee ,&nbsp;Young Soo Park ,&nbsp;Jaeseog Na ,&nbsp;Sung-Pil Park","doi":"10.1016/j.clsr.2024.106103","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The 2014 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in <em>Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank</em> caused a dramatic decline in software patents and marked a major shift in U.S. patent policy. Opponents argue that the <em>Alice decision</em> sounded the death knell for all software patents and deterred software innovation. Proponents suggest that the <em>Alice decision</em> did not stifle software innovation but actually increased research and development (R&amp;D) activity and the value of software patents. After examining the legal and economic background, we find that, contrary to the traditional model, a decrease in the number of patents does not necessarily signify a decrease in innovation, especially when the Factors Reducing Patent Value (FRPV) are prevalent. We present a theoretical framework and an empirical analysis demonstrating that the <em>Alice decision</em> has not negatively affected R&amp;D activity or the patent value of software. Our study demonstrates that the <em>Alice decision</em> has stimulated firms’ innovation activities and increased the value of their patents by restricting the scope of broad and ambiguous patent rights, thereby discouraging the accumulation of excessive patent rights.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51516,"journal":{"name":"Computer Law & Security Review","volume":"56 ","pages":"Article 106103"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computer Law & Security Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267364924001687","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The 2014 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank caused a dramatic decline in software patents and marked a major shift in U.S. patent policy. Opponents argue that the Alice decision sounded the death knell for all software patents and deterred software innovation. Proponents suggest that the Alice decision did not stifle software innovation but actually increased research and development (R&D) activity and the value of software patents. After examining the legal and economic background, we find that, contrary to the traditional model, a decrease in the number of patents does not necessarily signify a decrease in innovation, especially when the Factors Reducing Patent Value (FRPV) are prevalent. We present a theoretical framework and an empirical analysis demonstrating that the Alice decision has not negatively affected R&D activity or the patent value of software. Our study demonstrates that the Alice decision has stimulated firms’ innovation activities and increased the value of their patents by restricting the scope of broad and ambiguous patent rights, thereby discouraging the accumulation of excessive patent rights.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
10.30%
发文量
81
审稿时长
67 days
期刊介绍: CLSR publishes refereed academic and practitioner papers on topics such as Web 2.0, IT security, Identity management, ID cards, RFID, interference with privacy, Internet law, telecoms regulation, online broadcasting, intellectual property, software law, e-commerce, outsourcing, data protection, EU policy, freedom of information, computer security and many other topics. In addition it provides a regular update on European Union developments, national news from more than 20 jurisdictions in both Europe and the Pacific Rim. It is looking for papers within the subject area that display good quality legal analysis and new lines of legal thought or policy development that go beyond mere description of the subject area, however accurate that may be.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信